Objectivism and Children

[Xray]

Xray,

There was the shining presence of motherhood with happy kids and all in Galt's Gulch.

Michael

Correct, but in this case it would contradict Rand's own statement that bringing children into the world is sacrificing one's own sovereignity.

According to Objectivism “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” (D'Anconia in AS ).

So there must be a wrong premise somewhere. What could it be?

Examples of premises that could be wrong in this context:

'Ayn Rand never contradicted herself.'

'Since Objectivism is a fully integrated whole, entirely self-consistent, it cannot contain contradictions.'

Suppose the premise 'Ayn Rand never contradicted herself' can be exposed as false.

So if she did contradict herself, one will have to go through the process again in order to find her own wrong premise that produced the contradiction.

"Contradictions do not exist" doesn't mean that there exist no contradictory statements, or facts that seem to contradict other facts, like the fact of a person asserting X, but the assertion turns out to be false.

"Contradictions do not exist" means that one has to go to the root of an issue, to detect the wrong premises resulting in a situation where one is confronted with apparent contradictions.

[An aside:

Excellent advice by D'Anconia (who acts as the author's voice) abut checking premises when coming across a contradiction.

Reminds me of the criminal cases I have studied, where one often comes across contradictions between the evidence and the story told by a suspect. Or the evidence turns out to be exculpatory, thus contradicting the initial focus on a certain suspect.

So whenever one is facing a contradiction, the issue has to be examined closely.

For truth itself is always consistent and contradiction-free. So if the truth about an issue has been found out, it contains no more contradictions. Everything has fallen into place.]

[anthony]

The "appeal to religious dogma" argument:

if Jesus Christ returned and pointed out that Christianity contained flaws - who would you believe, Christ, or Christianity?

EXCEPT, that Objectivism's creator was no Christ. But a human being who made mistakes. And Objectivism is no religion.

Who, here, has tried to justify Rand's remark?

Flogging a dead horse, I'm afraid.

[Xray]

The altruism Ayn Rand bashed was a doctrine of ethics. (The philosopher who came up with it--Comte--is not important to this point.)

If there existed a 'sour lemon trophy' for a term causing more confusion than clarity because it is being used in so many different fields, I'd choose "altruism".

"Altruism" originally was an ideological term which has found its way into biology, where it is used to describe processes which have nothing to do with ideology.

An analogy to what has happened here would be if biologists had borrowed from Nietzsche the ideological term "superman" instead of using homo sapiens sapiens ...

But then yammering about it is of no use, for one will keep runnig across the term; one will come across texts speaking e. g. of 'altruistic ants', and exclaiming "But this is not altruism! An ant has no choice!" will have no effect.

For the term "altruism" is here to stay in many different contexts, and the only way out is to make clear what is meant those different contexts, wihout getting it muddled up.

While there doesn't seem to exist an officially accepted terminological alternative in biology for "altruism" in the form of a neologism, still I have frequently asked myself here, during the many controversial "altruism" debates, whether it is possible to do without this confusion-causing term when discussing facts about "man's nature".

Maybe it is possible here (without using the term "altruism") to establish a list of undisputed facts that all discussion participants can agree on as a basis, as a common ground, and then proceed from there?

The list could contain statements like:

In beings that live organized in groups, group-oriented behavior can be observed in forms allowing for little or no variations (example: worker ants), and also in elaborate forms with many variations (as in humans).

[BaalChatzaf]

Bad memes stay and stay. They never die.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[john42t]

But then yammering about it is of no use, for one will keep runnig across the term; one will come across texts speaking e. g. of 'altruistic ants', and exclaiming "But is not altruism! An ant has no choice!" will have no effect.

For the term "altruism" is here to stay in many different contexts, and the only way out is to make clear what is meant those different contexts, wihout getting it muddled up.

Interestingly, the ant genes are again selfish because they work in order to increase the survival chance of their own copies in the queen. That's the only strategy those genes can pursue, as the worker ant can't herself reproduce.

Individual-level (sacrifical rather than reciprocal) altruism has its root in gene selfishness (in human beings it can also be rooted in a moral code).

So far, I'm fine with any biologist.

It's only when they want to tell me that I have a natural desire to be altruistic to my tribe because I share genes with them when I'm beginning to object.

Human beings are not eusocial and sacrifical altruism is restricted to very specific cases such mother-child relationships, where the degree of relatedness is still high.

And even then I recommend any mother to have a quick check if that applies to her case (if so, she will experience an exceptional amount of that feeling called "love" towards her child), rather than to trust that net-tax-receiving biologists get it right. They have an interest in making you believe that you are a worker ant for the state that feeds them.

[Xray]

Bad memes stay and stay. They never die.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But like everything in the cosmos, they too are subject to change. It may take very long though.

Like everyone, I am a push- over for puppies and kittens (and probably piglets too, if it came to that), and that's interesting. Why are we instinctively drawn to caring for the young of other species?

I think the human instinct to care for one's young is there in such abundance that it can spill over to species that are closely enough related to our own (higher developed mamals) to show a 'small child pattern' in their young which is similar to ours.

We don't have this reaction to the young of e. g. spiders because they don't resemble our own at all.

[Xray]

The "appeal to religious dogma" argument:

if Jesus Christ returned and pointed out that Christianity contained flaws - who would you believe, Christ, or Christianity?

I think I'd try to get Christ into a detailed discussion first, starting with checking epistemological premises.

My ouverture would be: "Christianity contains flaws", you say. Hmm. Frankly, I always thought that the main flaw is the belief that you are the son of god. Just because I can see you here doesn't mean you exist btw. For I might be hallucinating.

From this it follws that I cannot take anything you tell me here as truth because there is no proof. My favorite biblical character has aways been the Doubting Thomas btw. As a kid I never understood why the guy was scolded for wanting some proof."

Who, here, has tried to justify Rand's remark?

As you have pointed out it, Rand's remarks about children were a subjective assessment on her part. It was her personal opinion.

If she had put it in other words, e. g. saying "I can't speak for others, but to me, having children would interfere so much with my life plans that I have decided against it." -

- thiis would have left room for individualism; after all, Objecivism claims to be a philosophy of individualism.

For the basic decision whether to have or not to have childrenis not in itself a question of "right or wrong".

For there is no general right or wrong here. Imo to claim that there is would be irrational.

One can only rationally assess one's specific, individual situation, and then come to a personal decision.

[Xray]

Interestingly, the ant genes are again selfish because they work in order to increase the survival chance of their own copies in the queen. That's the only strategy those genes can pursue, as the worker ant can't herself reproduce.

Individual-level (sacrifical rather than reciprocal) altruism has its root in gene selfishness (in human beings it can also be rooted in a moral code).

Interesting that all ants share a high proportion of their genes:

http://www.permanent....net/entry/1547

Looking at cooperation and conflict from the point of view of the gene, rather than the individual, proved to be enormously powerful. For example, Bill Hamilton’s work, first published in two papers in 1964, addressed an issue which Darwin had recognised could threaten his theory of evolution – sterility in social insects.

Most ants are female, and are sterile. From a “good of the species” position this was easy to explain – it was simply the best thing for that species of ant. But the individual ants, and their genes, must also acquire some benefit from this situation, or mutants acting purely for their own interest would inevitably arise.

Hamilton showed that altruism could evolve because all ants share a high proportion of their genes. When a sterile worker ant rears the queen’s eggs, she is contributing to the propagation of her own genes.

Hamilton’s insight was not only applicable to ants and bees. By defining “fitness” – the success of a given organism – in terms of the number of copies of its genes transmitted to the next generation (“inclusive fitness”), Hamilton opened the door to the study of the evolution of altruism and cooperation in all species – including humans.

“Hamilton’s rule” states that altruism will evolve whenever the benefits to the actor exceed the costs, multiplied by the relatedness of the two individuals concerned. This form of selection, which Maynard Smith termed “kin selection” turned out to be immensely powerful as a predictor of future behaviour – one of the key signs of the power of a scientific theory.

Here it is again: the pesky term "altruism" ...

[john42t]

Interesting that all ants share a high proportion of their genes:

1/2 half is the level of their relatedness, as they are all sisters (offsprings of the same queen). There are probably some exceptions, but by and large that's the way in eusocial species.

Altruism is the correct (and Randian) term to use here.

[Xray]

Altruism is the correct (and Randian) term to use here.

I don't think it is. For the kind of altrusim Rand attacked is the ideology of altruism, the doctrine that tells people they must serve others, and the collectve, first.

The term 'altruism' was coined by Comte (whom one could call Rand's ethical antipode), and he used it in exactly the same way as Rand, only that he, as opposed to her, advocated it as positive.

The biologosts later adopted this prescriptive ideological term for descriptive purposes, and here's the wrinkle from which spring so many misunderstandings that imo the biologists would have fared better if they had coined an extra neologism (like for example group-oriented behavior; other-regarding behavior) instead of applying the ideologically loaded term 'altruism'.

I'll try to replace, in this discussion, the term 'altruism' by 'group-oriented behavior' (or of there are only two beings involved, by 'other-regarding behavior') to avoid 'connotative loading'.

Group-oriented behavior can manifest itself either as a non-conscious process (as is the case with the ants which simply act on a biological program without having the choice to act otherwise), or and as the result of a conscious choice (like a human individual deciding to be a good team player on the job).

Also, there are interesting 'in-between' stages that can be observed: Suppose we start a day at work where everyone normally greets us, but on this day no one does. We would probably all get worried and ask ourselves what's wrong.

[john42t]

I'll try replacing, in this discussion, the term 'altruism' by 'group-oriented behavior' (or of there are only two beings involved, by 'other- regarding behavior') to avoid 'connotative loading'.

I believe 'group-oriented' behavior is much more confusing, it sounds like reciprocal altruism (helping each other out), which is yet again a totally different concept.

It's true that there is a difference between the altruism the moral code to self-sacrife and altruism the self-sacrice. But to tell those two apart is way less confusing and in a way it's proper for them to have a term with at lest a common stem.

Biologists refer to self-sacrifice, the moral code of altruism is what demands self-sacrifice. I see little confusion here.

[Xray]

I'll try replacing, in this discussion, the term 'altruism' by 'group-oriented behavior' (or of there are only two beings involved, by 'other- regarding behavior') to avoid 'connotative loading'.

I believe 'group-oriented' behavior is much more confusing, it sounds like reciprocal altruism (helping each other out), which is yet again a totally different concept.

It's true that there is a difference between the altruism the moral code to self-sacrife and altruism the self-sacrice. But to tell those two apart is way less confusing and in a way it's proper for them to have a term with at lest a common stem.

Biologists refer to self-sacrifice, the moral code of altruism is what demands self-sacrifice. I see little confusion here.

Imo the advantage of a term like 'group-oriented behavior' lies in its neutrality. It could be used as a hypernym (Oberbegriff), and then be devided into subcategores (like e. g. volitional, non-volitional) for maximum preciseness.

As for 'reciprocal altruism', imo Ayn Rand would not have accepted this term because in her eyes, nothing good can spring from altruism. (See how easily one slides into the realm of moral code again?) I think she would have argued from a trader principle here.

But when one watches two chimps grooming each other, can one really call this a trader principle at work, due to conscious choice?

[john42t]

As for 'reciprocal altruism', imo Ayn Rand would not have accepted this term because in her eyes, nothing good can spring from altruism. See how easily one slides into the realm of moral code again? I think she would have argued from a trader principle here.

That's why I said 'reciprocal atruism' is more confusing. Here I agree with you, and the concept has nothing to do with altruism: Reciprocal altruism is as much altruism as pronouns are nouns.

But when one watches two chimps grooming each other, can one really call this a trader principle at work, due to conscious choice?

I would say yes, it doesn't have to be conscious.

It can even be applied to the level of genes: Genes can "trade" in a sense: They can exist in mutually beneficial company. The same concept applies to the organisms they create, such as chimps.

Of course genes don't "want" anything consciously, but the metaphor works nonetheless. Genes compete, collaborate and prey on, just unconsciously by natural selection.

The nice feeling of company we human beings have when we socialize is the phenotype of genes that survived because of the many advantages of primates living in groups. Since on average such instincts are beneficial to most individuals, I would class it as a trade on that level.

Conscious trading is the advanced version of it only human beings are capable of.

[Mikee]

I'll try replacing, in this discussion, the term 'altruism' by 'group-oriented behavior' (or of there are only two beings involved, by 'other- regarding behavior') to avoid 'connotative loading'.

I believe 'group-oriented' behavior is much more confusing, it sounds like reciprocal altruism (helping each other out), which is yet again a totally different concept.

It's true that there is a difference between the altruism the moral code to self-sacrife and altruism the self-sacrice. But to tell those two apart is way less confusing and in a way it's proper for them to have a term with at lest a common stem.

Biologists refer to self-sacrifice, the moral code of altruism is what demands self-sacrifice. I see little confusion here.

I'll try replacing, in this discussion, the term 'altruism' by 'group-oriented behavior' (or of there are only two beings involved, by 'other- regarding behavior') to avoid 'connotative loading'.

I believe 'group-oriented' behavior is much more confusing, it sounds like reciprocal altruism (helping each other out), which is yet again a totally different concept.

It's true that there is a difference between the altruism the moral code to self-sacrife and altruism the self-sacrice. But to tell those two apart is way less confusing and in a way it's proper for them to have a term with at lest a common stem.

Biologists refer to self-sacrifice, the moral code of altruism is what demands self-sacrifice. I see little confusion here.

Imo the advantage of a term like 'group-oriented behavior' lies in its neutrality. It could be used as a hypernym (Oberbegriff), and then be devided into subcategores (like e. g. volitional, non-volitional) for maximum preciseness.

As for 'reciprocal altruism', imo Ayn Rand would not have accepted this term because in her eyes, nothing good can spring from altruism. (See how easily one slides into the realm of moral code again?) I think she would have argued from a trader principle here.

But when one watches two chimps grooming each other, can one really call this a trader principle at work, due to conscious choice?

There is no such thing as "group oriented behavior" applied to human beings. Human beings are rational thinking beings each with his/her own mind. Humans engage in ego centered relationships and trade with other humans in pursuit of their own values. Reason is the highest value because it is the best and only reality centered method for achieving other values. This POV is fully consistent with man's nature. All human tragedies are the result of trying to pervert human nature to something other than what it is. "Do-gooders", those who pretend to know better what's good for others than what they decide is good for themselves, are the root of all evil.

[Xray]

There is no such thing as "group oriented behavior" applied to human beings. Human beings are rational thinking beings each with his/her own mind. Humans engage in ego centered relationships and trade with other humans in pursuit of their own values. Reason is the highest value because it is the best and only reality centered method for achieving other values. This POV is fully consistent with man's nature. All human tragedies are the result of trying to pervert human nature to something other than what it is. "Do-gooders", those who pretend to know better what's good for others than what they decide is good for themselves, are the root of all evil.

"Group oriented behavior" does exist. It stems from the biological fact that we are beings that live in groups, hence group oriented behavior has long been necessary to ensure human survival. But this does not mean modern man has no other options, or that there is a moral obligation to always put the group first (as collectivist ideologists want people to believe).

[Mikee]

"Group oriented behavior" does exist.

By choice. The fact that most humans choose to interact with others for their own reasons and their own benefit and perhaps a fondness for their own kind does not mean that their behavior is "other centered" and group oriented. I have known people who thrived in the interior of Alaska for many months of the year absolutely alone the year around. The short period of interaction they had with others was for their own benefit, for trade. They are as sane as you or I. I believe human civilization exists due to the "outliers", those who think for themselves. They are who define "human", not those who choose not to think. To define humans down to the level of ants or even chimpanzees is more than a disservice but an evil due to its consequences.

[anthony]

It goes to show. As soon as you allow arguments from genetics in - you elevate picking fleas off each others' hides, and diminish humans interacting for the best within them.

Then the concepts become more or less blurred.

Then you get moral relativism.

Then you get the end of morality.

(It just occured to me that Glenn Beck was talking about "Gradualism", apropos Fabian Socialists.)

Huh! Good word.

Tony

[Selene]

Tony:

Precisely. Gradualism...incrementalism...it is the fanatical ability that they display to keep pressure on the entire social, educational, religious, governmental and political fabric of the society.

This is another reason why elections matter. The party or organization within the party that gets elected can appoint provisionally anywhere between 20 and 30 percent of the positions.

Now most people say, so what, when we vote them out in the next election, they will be gone. Not so. The paradigm is for the provisional appointee to take the first available civil service exam that they are qualified for. It might be clerk, or budget analyst, administrative assistant or MIS analyst. Once they have the civil service title, and they survive the probationalry period, they have become encysted in the bureaucratic system.

They become part of what Mark Levin and Toqueville referred to as the soft tyranny. Levin refers to it as the administrative state which oppresses every aspect of our lives and crushes freedom with a smothering morass of regulations that can neither be simply understood, or, easily fought, because the administrative review process is slow and completely controlled by the state apparatus.

The oppressive result is to smother creativity, independence and the ability to project and plan.

Disasterous.

Adam

[john42t]

It goes to show. As soon as you allow arguments from genetics in - you elevate picking fleas off each others' hides, and diminish humans interacting for the best within them.

Then the concepts become more or less blurred.

Then you get moral relativism.

Then you get the end of morality.

Only if you do it the wrong way. It's like kindness and altruism blurred. It doesn't have to be blurred, it's only when people (often on purpose) do blur them.

I agree that it's almost entirely done the wrong way, but that's just like philosophy is almost entirely done the wrong way. Before Rand I thought philosophy was pseudo-science, now I believe that it is a proper science that is corrupted. I have a similar view on Darwinism.

[anthony]

Adam,

Whew, it's worse than I thought. This is not 'creeping bureaucracy', you have, it's spiraling statism.

(Which I know about, too.)

Yes, indeed - incrementalism: sounds like that Chinese torture, "Death by a thousand cuts".

Thanks for the info.

Tony

[anthony]

It goes to show. As soon as you allow arguments from genetics in - you elevate picking fleas off each others' hides, and diminish humans interacting for the best within them. Then the concepts become more or less blurred. Then you get moral relativism. Then you get the end of morality.

Only if you do it the wrong way. It's like kindness and altruism blurred. It doesn't have to be blurred, it's only when people (often on purpose) do blur them. I agree that it's almost entirely done the wrong way, but .

Right. It's the 'doing it the wrong way'. It's the people who purposefully and knowingly blur them.

What are they scared of?

I've also seen it with Social Darwinists, who know all the biology, and nothing of the consciousness of Man.

[john42t]

The oppressive result is to smother creativity, independence and the ability to project and plan.

The good side is that the tide can be turning. In Germany there is a different trend even though there is *no* ideology pro-freedom.

It's just pragmatism: People see that the state doesn't work, the see the leftists are all in the media and in public education, they stop trusting them.

The climate changes, the state is somewhat shrinking, welfare has already been significantly reduced.

Long term planning is possible in Germany to some extent, creativity is still smothered (as it was for about the last 150 years), but I'm optimistic for that to change too.

The US/UK/Commonwealth countries are still heading in the wrong direction, but I believe their tide is about to turn as well.

[Mikee]

The oppressive result is to smother creativity, independence and the ability to project and plan.

Disastrous.

Adam

Yes. And when it appears to be impossible, or a least unlikely, to convince someone as intelligent and well meaning as xray of this [how many of xray's peers would post on an objectivist site?] it appears hopeless. But, I place my hopes in human nature and markets and hope democracy survives. In the end, I am optimistic.

[john42t]

I've also seen it with Social Darwinists, who know all the biology, and nothing of the consciousness of Man.

The most fascinating case I know is Dawkins.

Accused of promoting selfishness, he argues that his Selfish Gene defends altruism: Blurring the concepts he wants to tell us that what the Pope demands and what Selfish Genes want us to do is somehow related.

He's afraid of being outside, of not belonging to the "society" that pays him and that demands allegiance to the moral code it's based on.

He's a net-tax-receiver.

[Xray]

[how many of xray's peers would post on an objectivist site?]

Not many people here in Germany seem to know about Objectivism; I too would probably never have come across Ayn Rand's name either if I hadn't been in discussions on other America internet forums before, and in email exchanges with Americans.

But, I place my hopes in human nature and markets and hope democracy survives. In the end, I am optimistic.

I'm optimistic too because the collapsing of more and more dictatorial, oppressive regimes is an objective fact. I'm no Objectivist, but do think that mankind is definitely moving toward more rationality. But also toward more empathy. I'm firmly convinced that rationality combined with empathy will contribute immensely toward humanity's intellectual and ethical evolvement.